| name | amr-topic-selection |
| description | Use when the theoretical puzzle is the bottleneck for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — deciding whether an idea is theory-worthy and AMR-fit before any theorizing begins. Frames the puzzle; it does NOT build constructs (that is amr-theory-development) or design any empirical study (AMR has none). |
Topic Selection: Is There a Theoretical Puzzle? (amr-topic-selection)
When to trigger
- You have an interesting phenomenon, trend, or anomaly but no theory yet
- You are unsure whether the idea is "big enough" for AMR
- The idea feels like a study you'd run rather than a theory you'd build
- You can describe what happens but not why existing theory fails to explain it
The AMR fit test
AMR wants a theoretical puzzle, not a topic. A topic is "leadership and remote work."
A puzzle is "existing leadership theory predicts X, yet under condition C we should see
not-X — and no current theory resolves the contradiction." Run every idea through:
- Is it conceptual? AMR publishes no data. If the natural next step is "collect a sample," stop — that is AMJ/ASQ/SMJ. AMR builds the theory those journals later test.
- Is there a genuine puzzle / tension / contradiction? A gap ("no one has studied Z") is NOT a puzzle. A puzzle is a place where current theory is internally inconsistent, incomplete in a specific way, or makes a prediction that fails.
- Whose theory is at stake? Name the existing theory you will challenge and extend. If you cannot, route to
amr-literature-positioning.
- Will it change how scholars think? AMR asks for theory that reorients a conversation, not an incremental relabeling.
- Does it yield testable knowledge-based claims? AMR's scope requires submissions to "extend theory in ways that develop testable knowledge-based claims." You do no testing — but your propositions must, in principle, be refutable by someone, later.
- Is the scope a journal article, not a book? One focused theoretical move, fully developed.
AMR's own scope names four legitimate paths for a topic: (a) develop new theory; (b)
significantly challenge or clarify existing theory; (c) synthesize recent advances into
fresh theory; (d) identify and delineate a novel theoretical problem. If your idea fits none
of these, it is likely not AMR. Exemplars to emulate: Oliver's "Strategic Responses to
Institutional Processes" (AMR 1991, DOI 10.5465/amr.1991.4279002) challenged institutional
theory's conformity assumption by theorizing agency; Dyer & Singh's "The Relational View"
(AMR 1998, DOI 10.5465/amr.1998.1255632) synthesized a new locus of advantage. Neither used
data.
Sources of a strong AMR puzzle
| Puzzle type | Looks like |
|---|
| Theoretical contradiction | Two established theories make opposite predictions in the same setting |
| Boundary failure | An accepted theory breaks down at a condition no one has theorized |
| Construct ambiguity | A widely used construct conflates two distinct phenomena that should be separated |
| Missing mechanism | An empirical regularity is robust but the why has never been theorized |
| Phenomenon outrunning theory | A new organizational form / practice that current categories cannot capture |
| Reconceptualization | An old construct, re-specified, dissolves a long-standing debate |
From phenomenon to puzzle (worksheet)
- State the phenomenon in one sentence (no jargon).
- State what existing theory predicts here.
- State why that prediction is incomplete, wrong, or self-contradictory.
- State the one-sentence theoretical question that the paper will answer.
- State what scholars will be able to think/explain after your paper that they cannot now.
If any line is blank, the idea is not yet AMR-ready.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- "No one has studied X" framed as the contribution (a gap is not a puzzle)
- An empirical project wearing a theory costume — the real payoff is data
- A literature-review topic ("the state of research on X") with no new theoretical move
- Relabeling an existing construct and calling it new
- A puzzle so broad it would take a book; or so narrow it is a footnote to one paper
The most common AMR desk reject is "this is an empirical paper"; the next is "incremental
theory." Screen for both here, before investing in amr-theory-development.
Output format
【Phenomenon】one sentence
【Theoretical tension】what existing theory predicts vs. what should hold
【Theory at stake】the conversation to challenge & extend
【Theoretical question】one sentence
【So-what for theory】what scholars can newly explain
【AMR fit】yes / borderline (route empirical work elsewhere) / no
【Next step】amr-literature-positioning
